Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1216 (MAD)

R. Thirunavukarasu v. S. Vimaladevi

2018-03-26

P.N.PRAKASH

body2018
ORDER : 1. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as the complainant and the accused. 2. The complainant initiated a prosecution in C.C. No. 478 of 2008 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Karur, against the accused in respect of the cheque no. 920357, dated 18.10.2007, drawn on ICICI Bank Limited, Kodumudi Branch. 3. On a perusal of the impugned cheque, it is seen that the writings in the cheque are in Tamil, but, the signature of the accused is in English. The accused took a stand that she has signed the said cheque, but, she has not filled the writings in the said cheque. The accused filed a petition in C.M.P. No. 5699 of 2012 in S.T.C. No. 1015 of 2011 [old C.C. No. 478 of 2008] for sending the impugned cheque to the Hand-Writing Expert for comparison of the hand-writings in the cheque with that of the accused. 4. It is the case of the accused that she had not filled up the cheque, but, it is the case of the complainant that the accused had filled up the cheque. The petition in C.M.P. No. 5699 of 2012 in S.T.C. No. 1015 of 2011 was dismissed by the trial Court on 15.09.2017. Challenging the said order, the accused filed Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 525 of 2012 before this Court. This Court, disposed of Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 525 of 2012 on 20.07.2017 by passing the following order: “The Court below is directed to send the cheque in question to an handwriting expert within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, so as to compare the signature of the petitioner found in the cheque with the other writings found in the cheque and also to find out whether both the signature and other writings found in the cheque have been written by the petitioner/accused.” (Emphasis supplied) 5. In compliance with the above directions of this Court, the trial Court sent the cheque to the Deputy Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai, for comparison. The Deputy Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai, has sent a report dated 28.08.2017, stating that he needs 5-10 signatures in English of the person called S. Vimaladevi, relating to the year 2006-2010, for the purpose of comparison. The Deputy Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai, has sent a report dated 28.08.2017, stating that he needs 5-10 signatures in English of the person called S. Vimaladevi, relating to the year 2006-2010, for the purpose of comparison. Therefore, the accused filed a fresh petition in Crl. M.P. No. 11658 of 2017 in S.T.C. No. 1015 of 2011 with the following prayer: “So, the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to collect the sample writings of the petitioner/accused as found in the cheque concerned in the above case as requested by the Deputy Director of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai and send it again along with the said cheque to compare the writings through the advocate commissioner by reissuing commission warrant so as to follow the Hon'ble High Court orders and render justice.” 6. The trial Court has allowed Crl. M.P. No. 11658 of 2017 in S.T.C. No. 1015 of 2011 on 15.09.2017 by passing the following order: xxx xxx xxx Challenging the above order, the complainant is before this Court. 7. On 16.03.2018, this Court heard Mr. K. Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and Mr. R. Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the accused. 8. On a careful reading of the order dated 20.07.2017 in Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 525 of 2012, it is seen that this Court had directed the comparison of the handwriting in the cheque with the signature in the cheque. When this was brought to the notice, the learned counsel appearing for the accused requested this Court to refer the matter for the purpose of clarification to the same judge, who passed the order dated 20.07.2017 in Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 525 of 2012. This Court also dictated the order in the open Court referring the case to the learned Judge for clarification. However, before signing the order, this Court felt that the accused should have taken steps to have the clarification obtained in respect of the order dated 20.07.2017 in Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 525 of 2012 and such a clarification cannot be ordered by this Court in the present Criminal Revision Case that has been filed by the complainant. Therefore, this Court did not sign the order, but, posted the case for further hearing on 22.03.2018 and expressed to the counsel on either side the views of this Court. R.C. (MD) No. 525 of 2012 and such a clarification cannot be ordered by this Court in the present Criminal Revision Case that has been filed by the complainant. Therefore, this Court did not sign the order, but, posted the case for further hearing on 22.03.2018 and expressed to the counsel on either side the views of this Court. At that juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the accused submitted that it is not necessary that admitted hand-writings need not be contemporaneous in time with that of the disputed hand-writing and that he has a judgment of the Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in support of his view. Therefore, he requested this Court for adjournment. Accordingly, this Court adjourned the case today. 9. In the meantime, the learned counsel appearing for the accused has given a letter dated 22.03.2018 narrating what had happened in my Court on 22.03.2018 and asking the Registry not to list the matter before me but list the matter before the Judge, who passed the order dated 20.07.2017 in Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 525 of 2012. This Court will not be disturbed by such communications as this Court is capable of holding the bull by its horns and dealing with any matter whatsoever in the open Court. This Court deprecates the practice of such tactics. 10. However, this Court conducted independent research by consulting the Deputy Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai, who stated that if hand writings of a person contemporaneous in time with that of the disputed hand writings are available, then it will be easy for the hand- writing expert to come to a decision. He also added a caveat that, where such contemporaneous hand writings are not available, still if the person is asked to write certain number of pages, then there is a possibility for the expert to do the comparison with the disputed handwriting. He also stated that a fee of Rs. 1,500/- [Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred only] should be paid to the Forensic Sciences Department. 11. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that a fair opportunity should be given to the accused to prove her case. Therefore, the following directions are issued. (i) The accused is directed to pay the fee of Rs. 1,500/- [Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred only] should be paid to the Forensic Sciences Department. 11. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that a fair opportunity should be given to the accused to prove her case. Therefore, the following directions are issued. (i) The accused is directed to pay the fee of Rs. 1,500/- [Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred only] in the office of the Deputy Director and Hand writing Expert, Regional Forensic Sciences Laboratory, Collector's Office Road, Madurai-20, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) On such payment, the accused shall appear before Mr. Kumar, Deputy Director and Hand writing Expert, Regional Forensic Sciences Laboratory, Collector's Office Road, Madurai-20 and give her writings as required by him in as many pages as he wants. (iii) The accused shall pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- [Rupees Five Thousand only] to the trial Court and the trial Court shall send the impugned cheque in a sealed cover through a Special Messenger to the Deputy Director and Hand writing Expert, Regional Forensic Sciences Laboratory, Collector's Office Road, Madurai-20. (iv) The Deputy Director and Hand writing Expert, Regional Forensic Sciences Laboratory, Collector's Office Road, Madurai-20, is directed to give priority to this case and send the report along with the impugned cheque to the Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Karur. On intimation from the office of the Deputy Director and Hand writing Expert, Regional Forensic Sciences Laboratory, Collector's Office Road, Madurai-20, that the report is ready, the trial Magistrate shall send a Special Messenger to collect the report and the impugned cheque. (v) The Deputy Director and Hand writing Expert, Regional Forensic Sciences Laboratory, Collector's Office Road, Madurai-20, shall not be examined as witness in this case and his report will be taken as substantive piece of evidence. (vi) The accused is directed to furnish a bond under Section 88 Cr.P.C. for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- [Rupees Five Thousand only] to the satisfaction of the Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Karur. (vii) If the accused adopts any dilatory tactics, she shall be remanded to custody. (viii) The accused shall appear before Mr. Kumar, Deputy Director and Hand writing Expert, Regional Forensic Sciences Laboratory, Collector's Office Road, Madurai-20, on 09.04.2018 or on any other date as required by the Deputy Director. (vii) If the accused adopts any dilatory tactics, she shall be remanded to custody. (viii) The accused shall appear before Mr. Kumar, Deputy Director and Hand writing Expert, Regional Forensic Sciences Laboratory, Collector's Office Road, Madurai-20, on 09.04.2018 or on any other date as required by the Deputy Director. The complainant can also be present on the day, so that the accused can be identified. 12. With the above directions, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 13. The above directions are issued in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case in order to make the order dated 20.07.2017 in Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 525 of 2012 workable.